EXTENDING, MAGICING, REINVENTING

Admin
5 days ago
8 min read

Updated: 4 hours ago

Making Sense of Metamorphic Design Narratives

GK VanPatter, Jacob Lee Ravnborg, Aimi Winkler

Welcome back readers. We are happy to share this chapter-in-progress. As part of this Design for Complexity book's creation we guestimated that it would likely be of considerable interest to readers if we could make sense of the various narratives floating around online that are often being positioned as design “transformation. Lets call them metamorphic narratives as they all imply some form of change around the perception and in some cases the actual function of design. It is understood to be a phenomenon of any complex community that various neighborhoods, consisting of multiple generations of players, with diverse perspectives regarding need for change, are moving and adapting at very different paces, some proactively, others not so much. This is part of the complexity of the Design for Complexity subject. Metamorphic change can take numerous forms.

We also guessed that it might be useful to explain what it means and what is involved for organizations and individuals to make the jump from Arena 2 to the complexities of Arena 3 (Organizational ChangeMaking) and Arena 4 (Societal ChangeMaking). While numerous differences between the arenas were explained in our previous Rethinking Design book* the landscape of narratives in the marketplace regarding the changing nature of design and its transformation continues to evolve, not necessarily towards clarity.

THREE METAMORPHIC NARRATIVES

Journalistically speaking, there seems to be three central approach narratives present in the marketplace regarding change described as design becoming applicable to organizational and societal changemaking contexts, beyond the assumptions of product, service and experience creation. Unpacking that is a bit of a study in similar words being used by different groups to mean similar and different things.

Of course trying to have a conversation about design / design thinking without an organizing ecology present is most often a circular exercise. Fundamental to doing sensemaking in this subject and used through-out this book is the enduring, previously referred to NextD Geographies Framework.

Many of our readers will know that this book, this initiative, embodies one of the three metamorphic avenues outlined in this chapter.

EXTENDING

1. The INCREASE APPRECIATION TRACK embodies the notion that extending and increasing levels of appreciation for Arena 1 and Arena 2 design skills is overdue and equivalent to the transformation of design. The emphasis in this track is not on changing design but rather undertaking various convincing strategies intended to extend/enhance the under-appreciated value of Arena 1 and Arena 2 skills.

In this track there is no directly expressed or implied notion that design itself requires change. The notion of “scaling design” in this track means increasing the appreciation of current methods being positioned as design or design thinking. With no organizing ecology present “design” is depicted generically, vaguely, super optimistically. There is no expressed recognition that the methods of Arena 1 and 2 tend to be brief-based, downstream and assumption-boxed.

The Danish Design Council's “Design Ladder” maps to this track as it contains no suggestion, no recognition that a change in skill-building is needed if the goal is to engage with challenges other than product, service or experience.

The complexity recognized in this track is not related to the increasing scale of challenges facing organizations and societies or the arrival of increasing multiples of stakeholders/constituents, but rather the complexities of scaling adoption of current methods.

This track represents straight-forward marketing of existing, traditional Arena 1 and 2 design methods with widening adoption being positioned as much needed transformation. “Where is our seat at the leadership table?” is an often appearing refrain in this track. The INCREASE APPRECIATION TRACK contains no change drivers and no significant learning curve for those accustomed to the dynamics of Arena 1 and Arena 2. For the boomer generation, with many years invested, this extending track is an attractive, comfortable fit.

A significant chunk of the design community is heavily invested in and full-on intertwined with this track, which is somewhat different from Track 2 and very different from Track 3. New “Future of Design” books published from this track tend to contain no methods-related problem finding or problem acknowledgment regarding design.

MAGICING

2. The GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK more overtly embodies the deeply rooted philosophical, feel-good fantasy that design is a form of magic thinking scalable in its current state, to all problems, including wicked problems and thus no methods-related change is needed in the transition to Arena 3 and 4. As we pointed out in our previous Rethinking Design book, this is a logic with roots in various, still popular misinterpretations of the circa 1991 “4 Orders of Design” matrix.

With misinterpretation evolving across decades since it was first published, “4 Orders” became the most often referenced, steeped-in-academia licence to consider design a form of magic thinking. The “4 Orders” matrix became the wildest/vaguest interpretation of design possible, while simultaneously serving as a blockage to recognition of need for methods-related change, in academia and in practice. Of course serving as a blockage to change was not at all what its original author, Professor Richard Buchanan, had intended in 1991. The “4 Orders” magic thinking logic has essentially been hijacked and is often utilized in promotional marketing materials, contrary to its designed 1991 intention.

An added wrinkle: Although in the GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK method expressions tend to be product, service, experience related, this track tends to feed from, jump off from the false definitions of Design Thinking that have been unfortunately written into Wikipedia and are now being regurgitated by various Ai platforms, such as ChatGPT. Thanks for pointing this out Aimi Winkler.

Those wild definitions suggest that Design Thinking is specifically geared to “wicked problems”, when it has been known for decades outside of design that is not the case. The interpretation that philosophy is equivalent to methodology is common in this track. The result is a giant hairball of politics, power and wishful thinking that few in the community have the patience or courage to question, take-on and untangle.

Key to this track is that there is no acknowledgement that different skills, tools and methods are needed in the context of Arena 3 and 4. Organizing frameworks that lack acknowledgement of need for new complexity related skill-sets such as the Arena 2 oriented Danish Design Council's “Design Ladder” also map to this track.

In the GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK one can see efforts to force the application of existing product, service and experience methods to Arena 3 and Arena 4 complexity contexts. Several controversial articles have appeared indicating what tends to happen in such situations.*

Much of the playbook in this track involves suggestions for how to convince others of the value of Arena 2 skills/methods, product, service experience design, now presented and respun as applicable to Arena 3 and 4. The service design community in particular has been ambitious, super-aggressive at such (misleading) strategic repositioning redepictions that tend to add confusion not clarity. It’s a difficult fit, a difficult story preferring that the logic and problem acknowledging of Track 3 not show up in conversation.

The GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK has a lot of fans who often have been schooled/steeped in the magic thinking philosophy in various graduate design academies grappling with adaptation. The GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK flag flies high in several design community neighborhoods, including in many parts of graduate design education.

GIANT ASSUMPTION TRACK contains no change drivers and no significant learning curve for those accustomed to the dynamics of Arena 2. New “Future of Design” books published from this track tend to contain little to no methods-related problem finding or problem acknowledgment regarding design.

REINVENTING

3. The BIG REAL TRACK first and foremost acknowledges the gap, the disconnect between current methods being positioned as design or “design thinking”, primarily product, service and experience design and the fuzzy complex terrain of organizational and societal changemaking. It’s a serious disconnect, the visualized depiction of which was among the most popular diagrams in our last Rethinking Design book.* In this track there is a directly expressed recognition of need for method related reinvention/change that is absent in the other two narrative tracks. In this track a distinction is made between philosophy and methodology, two different things.

This track is about the heavy lift of reinventing design in the context of rising complexity and, not about extending the appreciation of traditional design methods.

The BIG REAL TRACK embodies the difficult recognition of need for what we describe in our previous, steeped-in-practice, Rethinking Design book as moving away from the Magic Thinking Mode and towards Skill-to-Scale. To get there this track has a deep embrace of hybrid combinations of methods-related knowledge from diverse disciplines also known as Think Blending. Both the previously mentioned Future Casting and Strategic Intervention approaches exist in this track. To use an exercise analogy; this track contains multiple curated versions of Innovation “CrossFits,” some embracing elements from one other discipline and some incorporating multiple elements from multiple adjoining disciplines.

For some practitioners adding one discipline element to design is not enough to meet the already existing needs of Arena 3 and 4 work. Fundamental to the BIG REAL TRACK is having methods that contain no baked-in, up-front assumptions regarding what the challenge paths and evolution paths might be in complex organizational and societal contexts. This eliminates 99 percent of the popular design methods operational in Arena 2.

This track assumes to be working upstream from defined briefs where creating a systemic picture of what the challenges/opportunities actually are embedded in various systems is a key aspect of some, not all, BIG REAL TRACK approaches.

What makes a difference in this track is the curation of Think Blending; what disciplines are being combined and in what order of integration. In some approaches systems thinking has been onboarded and is now driving the design train. In other approaches it is on the train, not driving the train, due to some of its historical predispositions that run contrary to enabling. Some approaches contain cognitive inclusion and deliberate inclusive culture building scaffolds, Others do not. Some approaches reflect awareness that the arriving generaton of design leaders have little/no interest in continuing the traditional table-top power-dynamics that the boomer generation tolerated. Some approaches have no such reflection. There is not one BIG REAL TRACK method.

Some have skill-building knowledge transfer programs up and running. Some do not. In general, left behind are the many hero-oriented methods-related assumptions from Arena 2 as described in NextD Geographies Framework.

The BIG REAL TRACK contains numerous change drivers and represents a significant learning curve for those accustomed to the dynamics of Arena 1 and 2 including graduate academic institutions. Inside the BIG REAL TRACK much of the already operational Emerging Design for Complexity Practice Community can be found. “Future of Design” books published from this track tend to include significant methods-related problem finding and problem acknowledgment regarding design.

CLOSING

To make a longer story shorter: The Rethinking Design Movement, the Design for Complexity initiative and this book are not about Tracks 1 or 2, not about EXTENDING or MAGICING.

In the following chapters we share our suggestions regarding the meat and potato attributes that are extremely useful to have on-board for those serious about making the transition to Arena 3 and Arena 4, regardless of which hybrid, Think Blending approach is adopted.

At the end of the day, with an acknowledgement in the direction of our Regeneration focused colleagues, with massive concerns, we ponder, in the big picture sense if this is as brave as the design community can be and as fast as it can move? The stakes are high and the time frame for transformation/adaptation not unlimited. Much time has already been consumed in pursuit of advocations around Tracks 1 and 2. That time is gone.

We remain hopeful.

This is a chapter in progress. If you have a constructive suggestion to make feel free to send us a message via the LinkedIn profile of GK VanPatter or Jacob Lee Ravnborg.

End.